Lawmakers should heed constituents on traps and trails

I wish there could be a sound system that accompanies words on a page, because if that were to be, the sound would be a crescendo. As many must know by now, I write solely about one topic — unregulated, unethical trapping — and since my last opinion piece (Jan. 17), even the trap-free city of Anchorage has experienced a dog death by conibear trap.

So, what is left to say? What possibly could be opined about that hasn't already been mentioned? Answer: the third leg of the trapping trifecta, legislators.

Legislators protect the trappers' status quo and confirm and/or deny appointees to the Board of Game. As I sat down to write this piece, it actually dawned on me that perhaps this component of the trifecta is the one that is least discussed and yet wields the most power in maintaining the imbalance. And let's not forget that the imbalance is that .4 percent of the state's populace wields "eminent domain" rights over 99.6 percent of the populace for six months of the year on public lands.

[Trappers shouldn't be free to endanger hikers and pets]

Stories are best illustrated by specific examples, and I have just such an example due to the recent introduction in the House Resources Committee of House Bill 40, sponsored by Rep. Andy Josephson, to ban trapping within 200 feet of any publicly maintained trail. Before Rep. Josephson even introduced the bill in committee, Rep. Chris Birch of South Anchorage sarcastically commented that he "… looked forward to hearing whether this was a recurring problem in District 17, midtown University or East Anchorage …" And so it began … with just a simple, sideways comment … before the bill was even aired … before public testimony was even heard.

But let's get to that public testimony, the trappers' testimony that is. After listening to all of it, here are the strategic, practiced points (condensed) that the trappers always argue to great effect, apparently: 1. Dogs are off leash. (I've discussed exceptions previously.) 2. No incidents of children in traps. (Not here, not yet because our dogs get to the traps first.) 3. Dogs roam, maim and kill wildlife and kids. 4. Measurement and enforcement would be difficult. 5. It is a local issue, not a state issue. I really did save the best for last, drum roll (crescendo) if we had sound effects … 6. Disabled and elderly trappers can't go 200 feet off a trail.

Trapper gentlemen and ladies: With respect to No. 6, all good things do come to an end someday. In truth, No. 5 is the most disingenuous argument they pose.  Whenever any individual or group attempts to propose ordinances at a local level — the Mat-Su Borough is a case in point — the argument put forth by the trappers is that trapping is regulated by the Game Board; i.e., the state.  Whenever any individual or group attempts to submit proposals to the Game Board (i.e., the state), the trappers argue that it is a local issue. This is a "bait and switch" scheme that results in a trapper win every single time … as long as there are legislators who go along.

[Alaska game board rebuffs two bids to restrict trappers]

And so now we come full circle back to Rep. Birch as our example in this case. In an email to me he stated " … I appreciate the power of local engagement and participation … If you want a local ban I would encourage you to pursue." He further stated "I am not dismissive of your testimony or opinion — I simply don't agree with it." The third supporting leg of the trifecta, folks.

I would conclude by saying this. Does Rep. Birch walk his dogs off leash under the umbrella of safety in Anchorage while simultaneously siding with the trappers and their No. 1 argument that individuals violating the leash law are the problem? I am still awaiting Mr. Birch's response to that question, but in the meantime, Mr. Birch ignores the fact that there is no "I" in performing his duties as a legislator. His word should have been "my" — "my" constituents don't agree with your opinion.

I would suggest to Rep. Birch and others who contemplate their votes in this committee that they should consult with their constituents before formulating opinions as to legislation. I would suggest that many of their constituents probably recreate in areas outside Anchorage that are not trap-free, and perhaps they would not appreciate their legislator imposing his/her personal opinion upon them. George Rauscher and Delena Johnson of the Mat-Su Borough and co-members of the House Resources Committee should take heed. Their constituents are listening and watching.

Lynn Mitchell is president of Alaska Safe Trails Inc. and a certified public accountant.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.